Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 581

control, N = 291

treatment, N = 291

p-value2

age

58

50.60 ± 12.71 (25 - 74)

49.40 ± 13.03 (25 - 74)

51.80 ± 12.50 (31 - 72)

0.476

gender

58

0.780

f

39 (67%)

19 (66%)

20 (69%)

m

19 (33%)

10 (34%)

9 (31%)

occupation

58

0.923

day_training

1 (1.7%)

1 (3.4%)

0 (0%)

full_time

6 (10%)

4 (14%)

2 (6.9%)

homemaker

4 (6.9%)

2 (6.9%)

2 (6.9%)

other

2 (3.4%)

0 (0%)

2 (6.9%)

part_time

9 (16%)

5 (17%)

4 (14%)

retired

14 (24%)

6 (21%)

8 (28%)

self_employ

2 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

student

1 (1.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.4%)

t_and_e

2 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

unemploy

17 (29%)

9 (31%)

8 (28%)

marital

58

>0.999

divore

5 (8.6%)

3 (10%)

2 (6.9%)

married

13 (22%)

6 (21%)

7 (24%)

none

34 (59%)

17 (59%)

17 (59%)

seperation

3 (5.2%)

2 (6.9%)

1 (3.4%)

widow

3 (5.2%)

1 (3.4%)

2 (6.9%)

edu

58

0.941

bachelor

18 (31%)

9 (31%)

9 (31%)

diploma

9 (16%)

6 (21%)

3 (10%)

hd_ad

2 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

postgraduate

6 (10%)

3 (10%)

3 (10%)

primary

4 (6.9%)

1 (3.4%)

3 (10%)

secondary_1_3

4 (6.9%)

2 (6.9%)

2 (6.9%)

secondary_4_5

14 (24%)

7 (24%)

7 (24%)

secondary_6_7

1 (1.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.4%)

fam_income

58

0.817

10001_12000

3 (5.2%)

1 (3.4%)

2 (6.9%)

12001_14000

3 (5.2%)

2 (6.9%)

1 (3.4%)

14001_16000

5 (8.6%)

2 (6.9%)

3 (10%)

16001_18000

2 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

18001_20000

3 (5.2%)

3 (10%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

9 (16%)

6 (21%)

3 (10%)

2001_4000

6 (10%)

3 (10%)

3 (10%)

4001_6000

9 (16%)

4 (14%)

5 (17%)

6001_8000

6 (10%)

3 (10%)

3 (10%)

8001_10000

4 (6.9%)

1 (3.4%)

3 (10%)

below_2000

8 (14%)

3 (10%)

5 (17%)

medication

58

48 (83%)

25 (86%)

23 (79%)

0.487

onset_duration

58

15.09 ± 12.16 (0 - 56)

17.01 ± 13.49 (1 - 56)

13.17 ± 10.56 (0 - 35)

0.233

onset_age

58

35.51 ± 13.74 (15 - 64)

32.39 ± 11.95 (16 - 55)

38.63 ± 14.87 (15 - 64)

0.084

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 581

control, N = 291

treatment, N = 291

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

58

3.24 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

3.21 ± 1.26 (1 - 5)

3.28 ± 1.19 (1 - 5)

0.832

recovery_stage_b

58

17.98 ± 2.65 (9 - 23)

17.93 ± 2.84 (9 - 23)

18.03 ± 2.49 (14 - 23)

0.883

ras_confidence

58

30.22 ± 4.73 (19 - 40)

29.76 ± 4.34 (19 - 40)

30.69 ± 5.13 (20 - 39)

0.459

ras_willingness

58

12.12 ± 1.99 (7 - 15)

12.07 ± 1.77 (9 - 15)

12.17 ± 2.22 (7 - 15)

0.845

ras_goal

58

17.45 ± 2.87 (12 - 24)

17.48 ± 2.73 (12 - 23)

17.41 ± 3.04 (12 - 24)

0.928

ras_reliance

58

13.29 ± 2.91 (8 - 20)

13.07 ± 2.72 (8 - 18)

13.52 ± 3.11 (8 - 20)

0.562

ras_domination

58

9.95 ± 2.24 (3 - 15)

10.48 ± 1.88 (7 - 15)

9.41 ± 2.46 (3 - 14)

0.068

symptom

58

30.12 ± 9.75 (14 - 56)

29.66 ± 9.27 (14 - 48)

30.59 ± 10.35 (15 - 56)

0.720

slof_work

58

22.22 ± 4.83 (10 - 30)

22.41 ± 4.52 (15 - 30)

22.03 ± 5.19 (10 - 30)

0.768

slof_relationship

58

25.52 ± 5.92 (11 - 35)

25.34 ± 6.18 (13 - 35)

25.69 ± 5.75 (11 - 35)

0.827

satisfaction

58

20.72 ± 6.48 (5 - 30)

19.38 ± 6.06 (5 - 29)

22.07 ± 6.71 (5 - 30)

0.115

mhc_emotional

58

11.19 ± 3.71 (4 - 18)

10.97 ± 3.09 (6 - 17)

11.41 ± 4.28 (4 - 18)

0.649

mhc_social

58

14.50 ± 5.08 (6 - 26)

14.93 ± 5.09 (7 - 26)

14.07 ± 5.12 (6 - 23)

0.523

mhc_psychological

58

21.81 ± 5.97 (6 - 36)

21.48 ± 5.70 (10 - 33)

22.14 ± 6.30 (6 - 36)

0.680

resilisnce

58

16.52 ± 4.57 (6 - 25)

16.28 ± 4.46 (6 - 24)

16.76 ± 4.73 (7 - 25)

0.691

social_provision

58

13.67 ± 3.05 (5 - 20)

13.38 ± 2.72 (8 - 20)

13.97 ± 3.36 (5 - 19)

0.469

els_value_living

58

17.16 ± 2.97 (5 - 23)

16.72 ± 2.52 (12 - 22)

17.59 ± 3.35 (5 - 23)

0.273

els_life_fulfill

58

12.86 ± 3.27 (4 - 18)

11.83 ± 3.12 (5 - 17)

13.90 ± 3.14 (4 - 18)

0.015

els

58

30.02 ± 5.54 (9 - 40)

28.55 ± 4.53 (20 - 36)

31.48 ± 6.12 (9 - 40)

0.043

social_connect

58

26.93 ± 9.36 (8 - 48)

26.93 ± 8.11 (8 - 45)

26.93 ± 10.61 (8 - 48)

>0.999

shs_agency

58

14.26 ± 4.58 (3 - 20)

13.66 ± 4.25 (3 - 20)

14.86 ± 4.89 (3 - 20)

0.320

shs_pathway

58

16.50 ± 3.74 (4 - 22)

15.93 ± 3.50 (8 - 22)

17.07 ± 3.95 (4 - 22)

0.250

shs

58

30.76 ± 7.78 (7 - 42)

29.59 ± 7.37 (14 - 41)

31.93 ± 8.12 (7 - 42)

0.255

esteem

58

12.52 ± 1.25 (10 - 15)

12.55 ± 1.15 (10 - 14)

12.48 ± 1.35 (10 - 15)

0.835

mlq_search

58

14.81 ± 3.47 (3 - 21)

14.79 ± 3.27 (6 - 21)

14.83 ± 3.71 (3 - 20)

0.970

mlq_presence

58

13.60 ± 4.06 (3 - 21)

13.86 ± 3.13 (6 - 20)

13.34 ± 4.86 (3 - 21)

0.632

mlq

58

28.41 ± 6.81 (6 - 41)

28.66 ± 6.03 (12 - 40)

28.17 ± 7.62 (6 - 41)

0.790

empower

58

19.55 ± 4.26 (6 - 28)

19.24 ± 3.88 (11 - 24)

19.86 ± 4.67 (6 - 28)

0.584

ismi_resistance

58

14.62 ± 2.80 (5 - 20)

14.48 ± 2.34 (11 - 19)

14.76 ± 3.24 (5 - 20)

0.711

ismi_discrimation

58

11.36 ± 3.40 (5 - 19)

12.41 ± 2.86 (5 - 18)

10.31 ± 3.61 (5 - 19)

0.017

sss_affective

58

9.91 ± 4.07 (3 - 18)

10.66 ± 3.56 (3 - 18)

9.17 ± 4.46 (3 - 18)

0.167

sss_behavior

58

9.66 ± 4.17 (3 - 18)

10.52 ± 4.07 (3 - 18)

8.79 ± 4.15 (3 - 18)

0.116

sss_cognitive

58

8.28 ± 4.20 (3 - 18)

8.69 ± 4.38 (3 - 18)

7.86 ± 4.03 (3 - 18)

0.458

sss

58

27.84 ± 11.56 (9 - 54)

29.86 ± 10.74 (9 - 54)

25.83 ± 12.18 (9 - 54)

0.186

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.21

0.216

2.78, 3.63

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.069

0.305

-0.529, 0.667

0.822

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.671

0.328

0.028, 1.31

0.051

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.188

0.456

-1.08, 0.704

0.682

Pseudo R square

0.049

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.503

16.9, 18.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.103

0.711

-1.29, 1.50

0.885

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.215

0.749

-1.25, 1.68

0.776

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.684

1.040

-1.35, 2.72

0.515

Pseudo R square

0.015

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.8

0.939

27.9, 31.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.931

1.328

-1.67, 3.53

0.486

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.01

1.248

-1.44, 3.45

0.426

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.223

1.731

-3.62, 3.17

0.898

Pseudo R square

0.014

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.1

0.372

11.3, 12.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.103

0.527

-0.929, 1.14

0.845

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.709

0.448

-1.59, 0.170

0.126

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.751

0.622

-0.468, 1.97

0.238

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.5

0.570

16.4, 18.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.069

0.806

-1.65, 1.51

0.932

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.677

0.723

-2.09, 0.740

0.356

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.18

1.002

-0.780, 3.15

0.247

Pseudo R square

0.010

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.529

12.0, 14.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.448

0.748

-1.02, 1.91

0.551

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.054

0.503

-1.04, 0.931

0.915

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.29

0.696

-0.072, 2.66

0.076

Pseudo R square

0.040

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.5

0.418

9.66, 11.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.07

0.591

-2.23, 0.089

0.075

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.318

0.677

-1.64, 1.01

0.641

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.34

0.940

-0.504, 3.18

0.163

Pseudo R square

0.045

symptom

(Intercept)

29.7

1.838

26.1, 33.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.931

2.600

-4.16, 6.03

0.722

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.851

1.335

-3.47, 1.77

0.530

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.51

1.849

-5.14, 2.11

0.422

Pseudo R square

0.007

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.4

0.902

20.6, 24.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.379

1.275

-2.88, 2.12

0.767

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.170

0.835

-1.81, 1.47

0.840

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.678

1.157

-2.95, 1.59

0.564

Pseudo R square

0.007

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.3

1.118

23.2, 27.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.345

1.581

-2.75, 3.44

0.828

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.37

1.195

-3.71, 0.973

0.263

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.20

1.657

-2.05, 4.44

0.477

Pseudo R square

0.008

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.4

1.245

16.9, 21.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.69

1.760

-0.760, 6.14

0.131

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.31

1.577

-0.781, 5.40

0.153

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.91

2.187

-6.20, 2.37

0.389

Pseudo R square

0.037

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

11.0

0.697

9.60, 12.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.448

0.985

-1.48, 2.38

0.651

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.898

0.688

-0.450, 2.25

0.204

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.39

0.953

-3.25, 0.483

0.159

Pseudo R square

0.008

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.9

0.992

13.0, 16.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.862

1.403

-3.61, 1.89

0.541

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.45

1.221

-0.945, 3.84

0.245

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.803

1.693

-4.12, 2.51

0.639

Pseudo R square

0.019

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.5

1.177

19.2, 23.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.655

1.664

-2.61, 3.92

0.695

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.30

1.421

-1.49, 4.08

0.369

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.71

1.970

-5.57, 2.15

0.392

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.821

14.7, 17.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.483

1.161

-1.79, 2.76

0.679

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.01

0.940

-0.828, 2.86

0.291

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.348

1.303

-2.21, 2.90

0.791

Pseudo R square

0.020

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.4

0.550

12.3, 14.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.586

0.778

-0.939, 2.11

0.454

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.456

0.649

-1.73, 0.816

0.488

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.966

0.900

-0.798, 2.73

0.293

Pseudo R square

0.026

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.7

0.549

15.6, 17.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.862

0.777

-0.661, 2.38

0.271

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.706

0.651

-0.569, 1.98

0.287

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.053

0.902

-1.71, 1.82

0.953

Pseudo R square

0.034

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.8

0.575

10.7, 13.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.07

0.813

0.475, 3.66

0.013

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.59

0.692

0.236, 2.95

0.029

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.43

0.959

-3.31, 0.454

0.149

Pseudo R square

0.092

els

(Intercept)

28.6

1.006

26.6, 30.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.93

1.423

0.143, 5.72

0.043

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.24

1.145

-0.007, 4.48

0.061

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.32

1.587

-4.43, 1.79

0.414

Pseudo R square

0.072

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.9

1.710

23.6, 30.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.000

2.418

-4.74, 4.74

1.00

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.80

1.268

-0.685, 4.29

0.169

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.442

1.757

-3.89, 3.00

0.803

Pseudo R square

0.006

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.865

12.0, 15.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.21

1.223

-1.19, 3.60

0.327

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.478

0.929

-1.34, 2.30

0.611

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.27

1.287

-1.25, 3.80

0.331

Pseudo R square

0.044

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.9

0.675

14.6, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.14

0.954

-0.732, 3.01

0.238

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.526

0.731

-0.906, 1.96

0.478

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.054

1.013

-1.93, 2.04

0.958

Pseudo R square

0.030

shs

(Intercept)

29.6

1.430

26.8, 32.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.34

2.022

-1.62, 6.31

0.251

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.921

1.446

-1.91, 3.76

0.530

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.41

2.004

-2.52, 5.34

0.488

Pseudo R square

0.042

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.222

12.1, 13.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.069

0.314

-0.684, 0.546

0.827

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.994

0.423

0.164, 1.82

0.021

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.560

0.590

-1.72, 0.596

0.345

Pseudo R square

0.083

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.8

0.637

13.5, 16.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.034

0.900

-1.73, 1.80

0.970

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.552

0.942

-1.29, 2.40

0.563

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.386

1.307

-2.95, 2.18

0.770

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.9

0.744

12.4, 15.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.517

1.052

-2.58, 1.54

0.625

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.739

0.925

-1.07, 2.55

0.431

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.152

1.282

-2.67, 2.36

0.906

Pseudo R square

0.010

mlq

(Intercept)

28.7

1.262

26.2, 31.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.483

1.784

-3.98, 3.01

0.788

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.27

1.690

-2.04, 4.58

0.460

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.611

2.344

-5.20, 3.98

0.796

Pseudo R square

0.007

empower

(Intercept)

19.2

0.774

17.7, 20.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.621

1.095

-1.53, 2.77

0.573

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.378

0.544

-0.689, 1.45

0.494

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.130

0.754

-1.35, 1.61

0.865

Pseudo R square

0.009

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.5

0.489

13.5, 15.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.276

0.692

-1.08, 1.63

0.691

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.772

0.708

-0.615, 2.16

0.284

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.538

0.982

-2.46, 1.39

0.588

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.4

0.612

11.2, 13.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.10

0.866

-3.80, -0.406

0.018

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.22

0.686

-2.57, 0.119

0.086

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.38

0.950

-0.484, 3.24

0.159

Pseudo R square

0.077

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.7

0.734

9.22, 12.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.48

1.038

-3.52, 0.551

0.158

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.001

0.617

-1.21, 1.21

0.999

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.535

0.855

-2.21, 1.14

0.538

Pseudo R square

0.044

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.5

0.745

9.06, 12.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.72

1.054

-3.79, 0.342

0.107

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.754

0.693

-2.11, 0.605

0.287

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.746

0.961

-1.14, 2.63

0.444

Pseudo R square

0.038

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.69

0.782

7.16, 10.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.828

1.106

-3.00, 1.34

0.457

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.596

0.715

-0.806, 2.00

0.413

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.962

0.991

-2.90, 0.981

0.342

Pseudo R square

0.020

sss

(Intercept)

29.9

2.102

25.7, 34.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-4.03

2.972

-9.86, 1.79

0.180

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.062

1.603

-3.20, 3.08

0.969

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.880

2.220

-5.23, 3.47

0.695

Pseudo R square

0.036

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.21 (95% CI [2.78, 3.63], t(75) = 14.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.67], t(75) = 0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [0.03, 1.31], t(75) = 2.04, p = 0.041; Std. beta = 0.58, 95% CI [0.02, 1.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.70], t(75) = -0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.93 (95% CI [16.95, 18.92], t(75) = 35.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.50], t(75) = 0.15, p = 0.884; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.68], t(75) = 0.29, p = 0.774; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.62])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.35, 2.72], t(75) = 0.66, p = 0.511; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.00])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.76 (95% CI [27.92, 31.60], t(75) = 31.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-1.67, 3.53], t(75) = 0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.69])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.44, 3.45], t(75) = 0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.68])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-3.62, 3.17], t(75) = -0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.34, 12.80], t(75) = 32.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.14], t(75) = 0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.17], t(75) = -1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.09])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.97], t(75) = 1.21, p = 0.227; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.99])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.48 (95% CI [16.37, 18.60], t(75) = 30.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.65, 1.51], t(75) = -0.09, p = 0.932; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-2.09, 0.74], t(75) = -0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.78, 3.15], t(75) = 1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.00])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.07 (95% CI [12.03, 14.11], t(75) = 24.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.91], t(75) = 0.60, p = 0.549; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.93], t(75) = -0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-0.07, 2.66], t(75) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.91])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.48 (95% CI [9.66, 11.30], t(75) = 25.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-2.23, 0.09], t(75) = -1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.04])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.01], t(75) = -0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.50, 3.18], t(75) = 1.42, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.66 (95% CI [26.05, 33.26], t(75) = 16.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-4.16, 6.03], t(75) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-3.47, 1.77], t(75) = -0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-5.14, 2.11], t(75) = -0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.41 (95% CI [20.65, 24.18], t(75) = 24.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.88, 2.12], t(75) = -0.30, p = 0.766; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.81, 1.47], t(75) = -0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-2.95, 1.59], t(75) = -0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.34 (95% CI [23.15, 27.54], t(75) = 22.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-2.75, 3.44], t(75) = 0.22, p = 0.827; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-3.71, 0.97], t(75) = -1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-2.05, 4.44], t(75) = 0.72, p = 0.470; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.75])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.38 (95% CI [16.94, 21.82], t(75) = 15.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.69, 95% CI [-0.76, 6.14], t(75) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.89])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.31, 95% CI [-0.78, 5.40], t(75) = 1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.78])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.91, 95% CI [-6.20, 2.37], t(75) = -0.87, p = 0.382; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.97 (95% CI [9.60, 12.33], t(75) = 15.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-1.48, 2.38], t(75) = 0.45, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.45, 2.25], t(75) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.61])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.39, 95% CI [-3.25, 0.48], t(75) = -1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.93 (95% CI [12.99, 16.88], t(75) = 15.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-3.61, 1.89], t(75) = -0.61, p = 0.539; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.45, 95% CI [-0.95, 3.84], t(75) = 1.19, p = 0.236; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.71])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-4.12, 2.51], t(75) = -0.47, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.48 (95% CI [19.18, 23.79], t(75) = 18.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-2.61, 3.92], t(75) = 0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [-1.49, 4.08], t(75) = 0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.64])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-5.57, 2.15], t(75) = -0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.67, 17.88], t(75) = 19.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.79, 2.76], t(75) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.83, 2.86], t(75) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.66])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-2.21, 2.90], t(75) = 0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.30, 14.46], t(75) = 24.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.11], t(75) = 0.75, p = 0.451; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.73, 0.82], t(75) = -0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.73], t(75) = 1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.92])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.72 (95% CI [15.65, 17.80], t(75) = 30.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.38], t(75) = 1.11, p = 0.267; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.79])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.98], t(75) = 1.09, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.65])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.71, 1.82], t(75) = 0.06, p = 0.953; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.83 (95% CI [10.70, 12.95], t(75) = 20.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.07, 95% CI [0.47, 3.66], t(75) = 2.54, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.15, 1.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [0.24, 2.95], t(75) = 2.30, p = 0.021; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.07, 0.91])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.43, 95% CI [-3.31, 0.45], t(75) = -1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.55 (95% CI [26.58, 30.52], t(75) = 28.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.93, 95% CI [0.14, 5.72], t(75) = 2.06, p = 0.039; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.03, 1.00])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.24, 95% CI [-6.55e-03, 4.48], t(75) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.15e-03, 0.78])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-4.43, 1.79], t(75) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.93 (95% CI [23.58, 30.28], t(75) = 15.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -6.40e-13, 95% CI [-4.74, 4.74], t(75) = -2.65e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = -2.97e-15, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.80, 95% CI [-0.68, 4.29], t(75) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-3.89, 3.00], t(75) = -0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.66 (95% CI [11.96, 15.35], t(75) = 15.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-1.19, 3.60], t(75) = 0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.76])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.34, 2.30], t(75) = 0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-1.25, 3.80], t(75) = 0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.80])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.93 (95% CI [14.61, 17.25], t(75) = 23.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.73, 3.01], t(75) = 1.19, p = 0.233; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.83])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.96], t(75) = 0.72, p = 0.471; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.54])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.93, 2.04], t(75) = 0.05, p = 0.957; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.59 (95% CI [26.78, 32.39], t(75) = 20.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.34, 95% CI [-1.62, 6.31], t(75) = 1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.81])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-1.91, 3.76], t(75) = 0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-2.52, 5.34], t(75) = 0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s explanatory power related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.55 (95% CI [12.12, 12.99], t(75) = 56.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.55], t(75) = -0.22, p = 0.826; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [0.16, 1.82], t(75) = 2.35, p = 0.019; Std. beta = 0.81, 95% CI [0.13, 1.49])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.72, 0.60], t(75) = -0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.79 (95% CI [13.55, 16.04], t(75) = 23.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.73, 1.80], t(75) = 0.04, p = 0.969; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.29, 2.40], t(75) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.71])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-2.95, 2.18], t(75) = -0.30, p = 0.768; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.65])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.86 (95% CI [12.40, 15.32], t(75) = 18.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-2.58, 1.54], t(75) = -0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.07, 2.55], t(75) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.64])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-2.67, 2.36], t(75) = -0.12, p = 0.906; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.66e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.66 (95% CI [26.18, 31.13], t(75) = 22.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-3.98, 3.01], t(75) = -0.27, p = 0.787; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-2.04, 4.58], t(75) = 0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.69])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-5.20, 3.98], t(75) = -0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.24 (95% CI [17.72, 20.76], t(75) = 24.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.77], t(75) = 0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.45], t(75) = 0.69, p = 0.487; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.35, 1.61], t(75) = 0.17, p = 0.863; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.52, 15.44], t(75) = 29.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.63], t(75) = 0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.62, 2.16], t(75) = 1.09, p = 0.275; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.83])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-2.46, 1.39], t(75) = -0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.21, 13.61], t(75) = 20.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.10, 95% CI [-3.80, -0.41], t(75) = -2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.11, -0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-2.57, 0.12], t(75) = -1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [-0.48, 3.24], t(75) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.95])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.66 (95% CI [9.22, 12.09], t(75) = 14.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.48, 95% CI [-3.52, 0.55], t(75) = -1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10e-03, 95% CI [-1.21, 1.21], t(75) = -1.78e-03, p = 0.999; Std. beta = -2.71e-04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-2.21, 1.14], t(75) = -0.63, p = 0.532; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.52 (95% CI [9.06, 11.98], t(75) = 14.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.72, 95% CI [-3.79, 0.34], t(75) = -1.64, p = 0.102; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-2.11, 0.60], t(75) = -1.09, p = 0.277; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.14, 2.63], t(75) = 0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.64])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.69 (95% CI [7.16, 10.22], t(75) = 11.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-3.00, 1.34], t(75) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.81, 2.00], t(75) = 0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.96, 95% CI [-2.90, 0.98], t(75) = -0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.86 (95% CI [25.74, 33.98], t(75) = 14.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.03, 95% CI [-9.86, 1.79], t(75) = -1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-3.20, 3.08], t(75) = -0.04, p = 0.969; Std. beta = -5.39e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-5.23, 3.47], t(75) = -0.40, p = 0.692; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

256.368

263.552

-125.184

250.368

recovery_stage_a

random

6

256.176

270.542

-122.088

244.176

6.192

3

0.103

recovery_stage_b

null

3

388.344

395.527

-191.172

382.344

recovery_stage_b

random

6

392.464

406.831

-190.232

380.464

1.880

3

0.598

ras_confidence

null

3

484.772

491.956

-239.386

478.772

ras_confidence

random

6

489.139

503.506

-238.569

477.139

1.633

3

0.652

ras_willingness

null

3

331.998

339.181

-162.999

325.998

ras_willingness

random

6

335.239

349.605

-161.619

323.239

2.759

3

0.430

ras_goal

null

3

401.863

409.046

-197.931

395.863

ras_goal

random

6

406.324

420.691

-197.162

394.324

1.539

3

0.673

ras_reliance

null

3

383.325

390.509

-188.663

377.325

ras_reliance

random

6

381.843

396.210

-184.921

369.843

7.482

3

0.058

ras_domination

null

3

364.040

371.223

-179.020

358.040

ras_domination

random

6

365.442

379.808

-176.721

353.442

4.598

3

0.204

symptom

null

3

569.475

576.658

-281.738

563.475

symptom

random

6

571.660

586.027

-279.830

559.660

3.815

3

0.282

slof_work

null

3

462.513

469.697

-228.257

456.513

slof_work

random

6

467.104

481.471

-227.552

455.104

1.409

3

0.703

slof_relationship

null

3

503.706

510.890

-248.853

497.706

slof_relationship

random

6

508.229

522.596

-248.115

496.229

1.477

3

0.688

satisfaction

null

3

530.970

538.154

-262.485

524.970

satisfaction

random

6

532.823

547.190

-260.411

520.823

4.147

3

0.246

mhc_emotional

null

3

424.478

431.662

-209.239

418.478

mhc_emotional

random

6

428.153

442.520

-208.077

416.153

2.325

3

0.508

mhc_social

null

3

491.257

498.440

-242.628

485.257

mhc_social

random

6

494.886

509.253

-241.443

482.886

2.371

3

0.499

mhc_psychological

null

3

516.719

523.902

-255.359

510.719

mhc_psychological

random

6

521.709

536.076

-254.855

509.709

1.010

3

0.799

resilisnce

null

3

458.822

466.006

-226.411

452.822

resilisnce

random

6

461.093

475.460

-224.546

449.093

3.729

3

0.292

social_provision

null

3

394.019

401.202

-194.009

388.019

social_provision

random

6

397.640

412.007

-192.820

385.640

2.379

3

0.498

els_value_living

null

3

395.653

402.837

-194.827

389.653

els_value_living

random

6

397.498

411.865

-192.749

385.498

4.155

3

0.245

els_life_fulfill

null

3

409.915

417.098

-201.957

403.915

els_life_fulfill

random

6

405.621

419.987

-196.810

393.621

10.294

3

0.016

els

null

3

496.073

503.256

-245.036

490.073

els

random

6

493.791

508.158

-240.896

481.791

8.281

3

0.041

social_connect

null

3

558.135

565.318

-276.067

552.135

social_connect

random

6

560.844

575.211

-274.422

548.844

3.290

3

0.349

shs_agency

null

3

466.499

473.683

-230.250

460.499

shs_agency

random

6

466.790

481.157

-227.395

454.790

5.709

3

0.127

shs_pathway

null

3

423.807

430.991

-208.904

417.807

shs_pathway

random

6

426.993

441.360

-207.496

414.993

2.814

3

0.421

shs

null

3

544.832

552.016

-269.416

538.832

shs

random

6

545.675

560.042

-266.838

533.675

5.157

3

0.161

esteem

null

3

268.021

275.204

-131.010

262.021

esteem

random

6

266.699

281.066

-127.350

254.699

7.321

3

0.062

mlq_search

null

3

424.817

432.000

-209.408

418.817

mlq_search

random

6

430.425

444.791

-209.212

418.425

0.392

3

0.942

mlq_presence

null

3

444.036

451.219

-219.018

438.036

mlq_presence

random

6

448.606

462.973

-218.303

436.606

1.430

3

0.699

mlq

null

3

532.196

539.380

-263.098

526.196

mlq

random

6

537.302

551.669

-262.651

525.302

0.894

3

0.827

empower

null

3

426.004

433.188

-210.002

420.004

empower

random

6

430.115

444.482

-209.057

418.115

1.890

3

0.596

ismi_resistance

null

3

382.323

389.507

-188.162

376.323

ismi_resistance

random

6

386.921

401.288

-187.461

374.921

1.402

3

0.705

ismi_discrimation

null

3

414.589

421.772

-204.294

408.589

ismi_discrimation

random

6

412.671

427.038

-200.336

400.671

7.918

3

0.048

sss_affective

null

3

426.804

433.988

-210.402

420.804

sss_affective

random

6

429.454

443.820

-208.727

417.454

3.351

3

0.341

sss_behavior

null

3

434.033

441.216

-214.017

428.033

sss_behavior

random

6

436.429

450.796

-212.214

424.429

3.604

3

0.307

sss_cognitive

null

3

439.462

446.645

-216.731

433.462

sss_cognitive

random

6

443.504

457.871

-215.752

431.504

1.958

3

0.581

sss

null

3

592.056

599.240

-293.028

586.056

sss

random

6

595.537

609.903

-291.768

583.537

2.520

3

0.472

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

29

3.21 ± 1.16

29

3.28 ± 1.16

0.822

-0.082

recovery_stage_a

2nd

11

3.88 ± 1.10

-0.798

12

3.76 ± 1.10

-0.574

0.795

0.142

recovery_stage_b

1st

29

17.93 ± 2.71

29

18.03 ± 2.71

0.885

-0.054

recovery_stage_b

2nd

11

18.15 ± 2.53

-0.113

12

18.93 ± 2.54

-0.470

0.460

-0.412

ras_confidence

1st

29

29.76 ± 5.06

29

30.69 ± 5.06

0.486

-0.299

ras_confidence

2nd

11

30.77 ± 4.47

-0.323

12

31.47 ± 4.50

-0.252

0.706

-0.227

ras_willingness

1st

29

12.07 ± 2.01

29

12.17 ± 2.01

0.845

-0.094

ras_willingness

2nd

11

11.36 ± 1.69

0.642

12

12.21 ± 1.71

-0.037

0.233

-0.773

ras_goal

1st

29

17.48 ± 3.07

29

17.41 ± 3.07

0.932

0.038

ras_goal

2nd

11

16.81 ± 2.65

0.378

12

17.92 ± 2.68

-0.283

0.319

-0.622

ras_reliance

1st

29

13.07 ± 2.85

29

13.52 ± 2.85

0.551

-0.369

ras_reliance

2nd

11

13.02 ± 2.19

0.044

12

14.76 ± 2.23

-1.021

0.063

-1.435

ras_domination

1st

29

10.48 ± 2.25

29

9.41 ± 2.25

0.075

0.605

ras_domination

2nd

11

10.16 ± 2.19

0.180

12

10.43 ± 2.19

-0.578

0.769

-0.153

symptom

1st

29

29.66 ± 9.90

29

30.59 ± 9.90

0.722

-0.293

symptom

2nd

11

28.80 ± 7.02

0.267

12

28.22 ± 7.21

0.743

0.845

0.183

slof_work

1st

29

22.41 ± 4.86

29

22.03 ± 4.86

0.767

0.188

slof_work

2nd

11

22.24 ± 3.69

0.085

12

21.19 ± 3.77

0.421

0.499

0.525

slof_relationship

1st

29

25.34 ± 6.02

29

25.69 ± 6.02

0.828

-0.118

slof_relationship

2nd

11

23.98 ± 4.83

0.471

12

25.52 ± 4.90

0.059

0.450

-0.530

satisfaction

1st

29

19.38 ± 6.70

29

22.07 ± 6.70

0.131

-0.688

satisfaction

2nd

11

21.69 ± 5.79

-0.591

12

22.47 ± 5.84

-0.102

0.749

-0.199

mhc_emotional

1st

29

10.97 ± 3.75

29

11.41 ± 3.75

0.651

-0.269

mhc_emotional

2nd

11

11.86 ± 2.92

-0.539

12

10.93 ± 2.97

0.293

0.448

0.563

mhc_social

1st

29

14.93 ± 5.34

29

14.07 ± 5.34

0.541

0.286

mhc_social

2nd

11

16.38 ± 4.55

-0.480

12

14.71 ± 4.60

-0.214

0.386

0.552

mhc_psychological

1st

29

21.48 ± 6.34

29

22.14 ± 6.34

0.695

-0.187

mhc_psychological

2nd

11

22.78 ± 5.35

-0.370

12

21.72 ± 5.41

0.118

0.639

0.302

resilisnce

1st

29

16.28 ± 4.42

29

16.76 ± 4.42

0.679

-0.210

resilisnce

2nd

11

17.29 ± 3.65

-0.440

12

18.12 ± 3.69

-0.591

0.589

-0.361

social_provision

1st

29

13.38 ± 2.96

29

13.97 ± 2.96

0.454

-0.367

social_provision

2nd

11

12.92 ± 2.48

0.286

12

14.48 ± 2.51

-0.319

0.140

-0.972

els_value_living

1st

29

16.72 ± 2.96

29

17.59 ± 2.96

0.271

-0.539

els_value_living

2nd

11

17.43 ± 2.48

-0.441

12

18.35 ± 2.51

-0.475

0.382

-0.572

els_life_fulfill

1st

29

11.83 ± 3.10

29

13.90 ± 3.10

0.013

-1.213

els_life_fulfill

2nd

11

13.42 ± 2.61

-0.934

12

14.06 ± 2.64

-0.097

0.560

-0.376

els

1st

29

28.55 ± 5.42

29

31.48 ± 5.42

0.044

-1.045

els

2nd

11

30.79 ± 4.46

-0.798

12

32.40 ± 4.52

-0.329

0.391

-0.576

social_connect

1st

29

26.93 ± 9.21

29

26.93 ± 9.21

1.000

0.000

social_connect

2nd

11

28.73 ± 6.56

-0.595

12

28.29 ± 6.74

-0.449

0.874

0.146

shs_agency

1st

29

13.66 ± 4.66

29

14.86 ± 4.66

0.328

-0.534

shs_agency

2nd

11

14.13 ± 3.74

-0.211

12

16.61 ± 3.80

-0.775

0.119

-1.097

shs_pathway

1st

29

15.93 ± 3.63

29

17.07 ± 3.63

0.238

-0.638

shs_pathway

2nd

11

16.46 ± 2.93

-0.295

12

17.65 ± 2.97

-0.326

0.336

-0.669

shs

1st

29

29.59 ± 7.70

29

31.93 ± 7.70

0.251

-0.669

shs

2nd

11

30.51 ± 6.05

-0.263

12

34.26 ± 6.15

-0.665

0.144

-1.071

esteem

1st

29

12.55 ± 1.20

29

12.48 ± 1.20

0.827

0.058

esteem

2nd

11

13.55 ± 1.23

-0.831

12

12.92 ± 1.23

-0.363

0.224

0.526

mlq_search

1st

29

14.79 ± 3.43

29

14.83 ± 3.43

0.970

-0.014

mlq_search

2nd

11

15.34 ± 3.19

-0.230

12

14.99 ± 3.21

-0.069

0.793

0.147

mlq_presence

1st

29

13.86 ± 4.00

29

13.34 ± 4.00

0.625

0.226

mlq_presence

2nd

11

14.60 ± 3.43

-0.323

12

13.93 ± 3.46

-0.256

0.643

0.293

mlq

1st

29

28.66 ± 6.79

29

28.17 ± 6.79

0.788

0.114

mlq

2nd

11

29.92 ± 6.02

-0.300

12

28.83 ± 6.07

-0.155

0.666

0.259

empower

1st

29

19.24 ± 4.17

29

19.86 ± 4.17

0.573

-0.479

empower

2nd

11

19.62 ± 2.93

-0.292

12

20.37 ± 3.02

-0.392

0.547

-0.579

ismi_resistance

1st

29

14.48 ± 2.64

29

14.76 ± 2.64

0.691

-0.154

ismi_resistance

2nd

11

15.25 ± 2.43

-0.430

12

14.99 ± 2.44

-0.130

0.797

0.146

ismi_discrimation

1st

29

12.41 ± 3.30

29

10.31 ± 3.30

0.018

1.255

ismi_discrimation

2nd

11

11.19 ± 2.70

0.730

12

10.46 ± 2.73

-0.092

0.524

0.432

sss_affective

1st

29

10.66 ± 3.95

29

9.17 ± 3.95

0.158

1.001

sss_affective

2nd

11

10.65 ± 2.92

0.001

12

8.64 ± 2.98

0.362

0.105

1.363

sss_behavior

1st

29

10.52 ± 4.01

29

8.79 ± 4.01

0.107

1.032

sss_behavior

2nd

11

9.76 ± 3.06

0.451

12

8.79 ± 3.12

0.004

0.450

0.585

sss_cognitive

1st

29

8.69 ± 4.21

29

7.86 ± 4.21

0.457

0.480

sss_cognitive

2nd

11

9.29 ± 3.19

-0.346

12

7.50 ± 3.26

0.212

0.187

1.038

sss

1st

29

29.86 ± 11.32

29

25.83 ± 11.32

0.180

1.054

sss

2nd

11

29.80 ± 8.12

0.016

12

24.89 ± 8.33

0.246

0.156

1.284

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(69.24) = 0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.68)

2st

t(69.44) = -0.26, p = 0.795, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.80)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(68.55) = 0.15, p = 0.885, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.32 to 1.52)

2st

t(69.22) = 0.74, p = 0.460, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.90)

ras_confidence

1st

t(65.33) = 0.70, p = 0.486, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.72 to 3.58)

2st

t(69.52) = 0.38, p = 0.706, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-3.03 to 4.44)

ras_willingness

1st

t(63.28) = 0.20, p = 0.845, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.16)

2st

t(71.19) = 1.20, p = 0.233, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.27)

ras_goal

1st

t(64.29) = -0.09, p = 0.932, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.68 to 1.54)

2st

t(70.21) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-1.10 to 3.33)

ras_reliance

1st

t(60.15) = 0.60, p = 0.551, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.94)

2st

t(75.89) = 1.89, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -1.43, 95% CI (-0.09 to 3.58)

ras_domination

1st

t(71.60) = -1.81, p = 0.075, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.25 to 0.11)

2st

t(70.84) = 0.29, p = 0.769, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.56 to 2.10)

symptom

1st

t(58.28) = 0.36, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-4.27 to 6.13)

2st

t(76.41) = -0.20, p = 0.845, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-6.49 to 5.33)

slof_work

1st

t(59.92) = -0.30, p = 0.767, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.93 to 2.17)

2st

t(76.23) = -0.68, p = 0.499, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-4.16 to 2.04)

slof_relationship

1st

t(61.46) = 0.22, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.82 to 3.51)

2st

t(73.75) = 0.76, p = 0.450, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-2.50 to 5.59)

satisfaction

1st

t(64.27) = 1.53, p = 0.131, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.83 to 6.21)

2st

t(70.22) = 0.32, p = 0.749, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-4.06 to 5.62)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(60.53) = 0.45, p = 0.651, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.42)

2st

t(75.30) = -0.76, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-3.39 to 1.51)

mhc_social

1st

t(63.68) = -0.61, p = 0.541, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-3.67 to 1.94)

2st

t(70.76) = -0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.47 to 2.14)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(63.34) = 0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.67 to 3.98)

2st

t(71.12) = -0.47, p = 0.639, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-5.54 to 3.42)

resilisnce

1st

t(62.45) = 0.42, p = 0.679, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.84 to 2.80)

2st

t(72.25) = 0.54, p = 0.589, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-2.22 to 3.89)

social_provision

1st

t(62.93) = 0.75, p = 0.454, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.97 to 2.14)

2st

t(71.61) = 1.49, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (-0.52 to 3.63)

els_value_living

1st

t(62.99) = 1.11, p = 0.271, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.41)

2st

t(71.53) = 0.88, p = 0.382, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.16 to 2.99)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(63.27) = 2.54, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -1.21, 95% CI (0.44 to 3.69)

2st

t(71.20) = 0.59, p = 0.560, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.83)

els

1st

t(62.34) = 2.06, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (0.09 to 5.77)

2st

t(72.39) = 0.86, p = 0.391, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-2.12 to 5.35)

social_connect

1st

t(58.39) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-4.84 to 4.84)

2st

t(76.60) = -0.16, p = 0.874, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-5.97 to 5.08)

shs_agency

1st

t(61.52) = 0.99, p = 0.328, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.65)

2st

t(73.66) = 1.58, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -1.10, 95% CI (-0.65 to 5.62)

shs_pathway

1st

t(61.64) = 1.19, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.77 to 3.05)

2st

t(73.47) = 0.97, p = 0.336, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-1.26 to 3.65)

shs

1st

t(60.79) = 1.16, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-1.70 to 6.39)

2st

t(74.86) = 1.48, p = 0.144, Cohen d = -1.07, 95% CI (-1.31 to 8.82)

esteem

1st

t(77.00) = -0.22, p = 0.827, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.56)

2st

t(77.00) = -1.23, p = 0.224, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.65 to 0.39)

mlq_search

1st

t(68.31) = 0.04, p = 0.970, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.76 to 1.83)

2st

t(69.16) = -0.26, p = 0.793, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.02 to 2.31)

mlq_presence

1st

t(63.89) = -0.49, p = 0.625, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.62 to 1.58)

2st

t(70.56) = -0.47, p = 0.643, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-3.54 to 2.20)

mlq

1st

t(65.52) = -0.27, p = 0.788, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-4.05 to 3.08)

2st

t(69.44) = -0.43, p = 0.666, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-6.13 to 3.94)

empower

1st

t(58.13) = 0.57, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.57 to 2.81)

2st

t(76.05) = 0.60, p = 0.547, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-1.72 to 3.22)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(67.61) = 0.40, p = 0.691, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.66)

2st

t(69.06) = -0.26, p = 0.797, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.76)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(62.10) = -2.43, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 1.25, 95% CI (-3.83 to -0.37)

2st

t(72.75) = -0.64, p = 0.524, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.98 to 1.53)

sss_affective

1st

t(59.15) = -1.43, p = 0.158, Cohen d = 1.00, 95% CI (-3.56 to 0.59)

2st

t(76.95) = -1.64, p = 0.105, Cohen d = 1.36, 95% CI (-4.47 to 0.43)

sss_behavior

1st

t(59.95) = -1.64, p = 0.107, Cohen d = 1.03, 95% CI (-3.83 to 0.38)

2st

t(76.17) = -0.76, p = 0.450, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-3.54 to 1.59)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(59.80) = -0.75, p = 0.457, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-3.04 to 1.39)

2st

t(76.37) = -1.33, p = 0.187, Cohen d = 1.04, 95% CI (-4.47 to 0.89)

sss

1st

t(58.54) = -1.36, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 1.05, 95% CI (-9.98 to 1.91)

2st

t(76.79) = -1.43, p = 0.156, Cohen d = 1.28, 95% CI (-11.75 to 1.92)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(30.85) = 1.50, p = 0.287, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.14)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(30.17) = 1.23, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.40)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(27.34) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.71 to 3.28)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(25.75) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.94)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(26.51) = 0.72, p = 0.954, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.95)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(23.57) = 2.55, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (0.24 to 2.24)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(33.48) = 1.54, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.33 to 2.37)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(22.38) = -1.84, p = 0.158, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-5.03 to 0.30)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(23.42) = -1.05, p = 0.607, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.51 to 0.82)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(24.46) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.56 to 2.21)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(26.50) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.75 to 3.55)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(23.83) = -0.73, p = 0.942, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.86 to 0.89)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(26.05) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.79 to 3.08)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(25.80) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.25 to 2.42)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(25.15) = 1.50, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.51 to 3.24)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(25.50) = 0.81, p = 0.851, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.81)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(25.54) = 1.20, p = 0.480, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.06)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(25.75) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.55)

els

1st vs 2st

t(25.08) = 0.83, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.36 to 3.21)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(22.45) = 1.11, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-1.17 to 3.89)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(24.50) = 1.95, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.10 to 3.61)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(24.58) = 0.82, p = 0.840, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.88 to 2.04)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(24.00) = 1.67, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.56 to 5.22)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(47.29) = 1.04, p = 0.610, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.28)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(29.94) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.71 to 2.05)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(26.21) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.43)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(27.49) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.72 to 4.03)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(22.28) = 0.97, p = 0.685, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.59)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(29.29) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.65)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(24.90) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.52)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(22.93) = -0.90, p = 0.754, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.77 to 0.70)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(23.44) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.39 to 1.38)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(23.35) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.06)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(22.54) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-4.14 to 2.25)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(31.59) = 2.01, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.35)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(30.86) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.34 to 1.77)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(27.78) = 0.80, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.60)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(26.08) = -1.56, p = 0.260, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-1.64 to 0.22)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(26.89) = -0.92, p = 0.727, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.18 to 0.83)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(23.74) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.99)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(34.47) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.72 to 1.09)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(22.46) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.63 to 1.93)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(23.57) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.91 to 1.57)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(24.69) = -1.14, p = 0.534, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-3.86 to 1.12)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(26.88) = 1.45, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.97 to 5.59)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(24.01) = 1.30, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.33)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(26.40) = 1.17, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.09 to 3.99)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(26.12) = 0.90, p = 0.750, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.66 to 4.25)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(25.43) = 1.07, p = 0.591, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.97)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(25.80) = -0.69, p = 0.987, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.89)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(25.85) = 1.07, p = 0.586, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.06)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(26.07) = 2.27, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (0.15 to 3.03)

els

1st vs 2st

t(25.35) = 1.93, p = 0.129, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.14 to 4.62)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(22.53) = 1.41, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.84 to 4.44)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(24.73) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.45 to 2.41)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(24.82) = 0.71, p = 0.964, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.99 to 2.05)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(24.20) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.09 to 3.93)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(49.53) = 2.30, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.86)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(30.60) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.40 to 2.51)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(26.57) = 0.79, p = 0.874, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.18 to 2.66)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(27.94) = 0.74, p = 0.931, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-2.24 to 4.78)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(22.36) = 0.69, p = 0.992, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.51)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(29.90) = 1.07, p = 0.584, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.24)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(25.16) = -1.77, p = 0.178, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-2.65 to 0.20)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(23.05) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.28)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(23.60) = -1.08, p = 0.582, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-2.20 to 0.69)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(23.50) = 0.83, p = 0.832, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.08)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(22.63) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-3.40 to 3.27)

Plot

Clinical significance